2. From 19th 19th 19th 2th 19th 2th 2th 19th 2th 19th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 3th 201, the interest was paid from Defendant B from Defendant B to March 2016. D, on July 16, 2013, determined and lent KRW 30 million as interest per month to Defendant C, and the interest was paid from Defendant C to February 2015. The following was added to the end of 3rd 6th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 201, stating that “The name of Defendant B was written as the borrower, and the signature of Defendant B himself is written on that next 2nd 3rd 1st 1st 200.”

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2-1 to No. 4, 248 million won among the loans specified in Gap evidence No. 1 was remitted to the defendant Eul.

In light of these circumstances, it can be seen that the Plaintiff is also the lender of this part of the loan with D.

In addition, since the borrower is not necessarily required to lend the loan only with his own funds, it is difficult to view that the lender is different depending on where the source of the loan is.

Furthermore, as seen later, the Plaintiff can be deemed the only inheritor of D, and as long as the Plaintiff cannot accept the Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiff is disqualified for inheritance, the lender of this part of the loan does not affect the conclusion of the instant case.

[] The 3rd page “from March 21, 2016 to April 26, 2016, the delivery date of a complaint,” as follows, is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation of Defendant B from April 21, 2016 to April 26, 2016, in which no dispute exists over the following day after the payment period of interest.